Just goes to show while I voice my opinion I am honest....lol. I do agree with Mouse when it comes to Google and Verizon what I would like to know is how is Apple any different?

I would like to also get your opinion on the situation. I buy into the Apple ecosystem just like everyone else here but I don't fool myself into believing they aren't controlling the content that I use for their benefit not mine.

I mean lets be honest, you jailbreak and I root. So clearly we don't except the experience as is, we want to create our own experience.

Certainly Apple is controlling the content for Apple's benefit! Add to that:
-- preserving, as much as possible the User Experience for Apple devices (so they can sell more of them)
-- requiring developers to write apps using the iPhone SDK, thus requiring a Mac and exposing them to the Mac development platform.
-- requiring them to distro their apps through the iTunes app store to further enhance Apple's ecosystem

As an Apple customer and an APPL shareholder I am happy with the situation.

I JailBroke the original iPhone (bought an extra one for that purpose) and the first AppleTV. It was interesting-- had some benefits, but a lot of downsides.

After a while, I tired of the cat & mouse and no-longer JailBreak. As a developer, I can do most of what I want on my devices-- without all the hassle and exposures.

I just downloaded the PalmPre Ares SDK! I am going to play around with it this weekend. I have a suspicion that Palm's OS is an underdog that will soon re-emerge as a major mobile OS competitor.

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.

I support net neutrality. But again, unlike your Dubya'esque black and white world, I see a little more nuance.

What if Google is right and that the deadlock was allowing the carriers to creep ahead and move toward a non-neutral internet by default? Would that be any better? They could stall forever, and just balkanize the wired internet as well. Would you have preferred that outcome?

This is why, I would like to know how much truth there is Google's assertion that they had to broker this deal to move forward. If they were blowing smoke then I most certainly don't agree with it. If the unregulated status quo was leading to a default option of a non-neutral internet in the US, then Google's stance certainly has some merit.

This cannot be an absolute debate unless it was a question of whether your government was willing to act without industrial consent. If the choice is between a broken status quo and industry moving by stealth towards a non-neutral internet in both wired (which matters far more) and wireless domains (neither of which is protected today in the United States...and yet you don't seem upset about that...where was your rage before this deal on the issue?), and a protected wired domain and a non-neutral wireless domain, then I choose the second option. Unfortunately, those are horrible choices and your legislators should get off their butts regulate net neutrality across the board. But that option doesn't seem to be on the table at all. Ask yourself why that's the case.

Don't blame Google if your government doesn't do its job. At least this deal protects half the internet. That's better than what you have right now. Now demand from your government that they do their job and protect the other half too.

Actually a cop out is bitching about something and doing nothing about it. Which is what Jetz is saying. So if you feel that moral then get on the phone and contact someone or write your reps instead of pushing your moral BS here.

When you don't like something you have two options either take real action to try to invoke a change or STFU. Pick one.

Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.

It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.

I support net neutrality. But again, unlike your Dubya'esque black and white world, I see a little more nuance.

What if Google is right and that the deadlock was allowing the carriers to creep ahead and move toward a non-neutral internet by default? Would that be any better? They could stall forever, and just balkanize the wired internet as well. Would you have preferred that outcome?

This is why, I would like to know how much truth there is Google's assertion that they had to broker this deal to move forward. If they were blowing smoke then I most certainly don't agree with it. If the unregulated status quo was leading to a default option of a non-neutral internet in the US, then Google's stance certainly has some merit. ...

Duh! Of course they are blowing smoke. That's why they are all in favor of exempting wireless, that's why they are in favor of loopholes so big carriers can drive whatever they want through them, that's why they want to emasculate the FCC. And, talk of the "public internet" absolutely implies that you believe in something else. If Google were actually serious about net neutrality, then they would take that stand, and offer a framework that supports it, not this nonsense that tries to sound good by tossing the word open around as much as possible, while gutting the entire concept.

You sound a lot like Google in your response, and it's not what anyone would call straight talking. So, which kind of net neutrality is it that you support? Real net neutrality, or the phony Google/Verizon doublespeak kind of net neutrality. If you support the former, then any action you take to support Google generally, undermines the very principles you claim to support. There is no way to have it both ways here.

Right, discussion of moral issues has no place on a tech forum. And one can't possibly discuss these issues here and take other action.

It may make you uncomfortable to have it pointed out to you that your choices usually have moral implications, that just because they are technology or business choices they aren't exempt, that your choices on these issues determine what sort of person you are, what kind of character you have, but that doesn't mean these issues ought not be discussed, and it doesn't mean that anyone who wishes to live an ethical life can just ignore them because it's inconvenient or unpleasant to think about.

Lots of talk. Where was your concern for net neutrality before this? I haven't seen too many posts from you expressing alarm on the matter before this deal came out. That's what makes me think you are more concerned with bashing Google than your are concerned about ethics.

For my part, I've written to the CRTC (our FCC like authority) advocating for absolute net neutrality and done the same to my Member of Parliament, well before the issue was fashionable. So please, no lectures on morality.

Actually, you are the one framing things in black and white: all companies are evil, so there is no choice as to more or less evil, so it doesn't matter that I support one, because there is no moral difference between the choices. That's a very convenient framework to avoid any sense of moral culpability in your own mind.

You do know what black and white means right? That you side completely with one side or the other. Either Google is a company completely out to get you or their angels that can do no harm.

If you read my post, you'll see that I said that even though all companies can be considered evil at some level, it varies. That actually makes this a lot less black and white. Google has made these missteps, but yet the services they provide have made my life easier and are generally very good. So dispite them doing all this "evil", I still decide that they're worth my support. If I was being black and white, I'd condemn Google only on the basis of their missteps, regardless of what good they've done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

There you go with more of your black and white reasoning, combined with a dash of misrepresentation on the side. You can try all you want to justify Google's unethical behavior, and your complicity, but, in the end, it's all just rationalization on your part.

And my complicity eh? So now in your mind I'm an employee on Google's board helping to drive the "evil plot of doom" along. Good one!

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

What a cop out. Seems that, based on your comments, all you've read so far is what Google has to say on the matter, which is pure BS. You're either for net neutrality or you aren't, and the Google/Verizon pact isn't net neutrality, so you are either for it or against it. A lot of words to dodge the question doesn't make it go away.

If you want any more proof that you're thinking in black and white, then here it is in front of you. I support net neutrality as a whole, but yet I also support Google as a company. According to your logic, because I support net neutrality, I must condemn Google to hang. But yet I don't... Where's the black and white in my thinking?

I like how you deflected the topic at hand (actually, it's off-topic as this thread is about Android jumping ahead in sales) to an attack on what you think my morals are. Especially when it makes you appear that you've been backed into a wall and have nothing of reason to put forth.

You'd make an excellent politician some day. Ever consider running for office? Maybe then you'll actually be able to make a difference instead of sitting here in an internet forum attacking random posts.

I am not saying Google is right. But I am not going to say they are wrong either. Prior to us implementing net neutrality legislation in Canada, our ISPs had begun to clamp down on the wired internet side (throttling torrents for example, using packet sniffing, prioritizing their own VOIP packets, etc.). This is what led to the outrage on the issue here to begin with. Once the hearing began the CRTC saw no reason not to extend the legislation across the board (what helps for us is that our wireless telcos are also our ISPs...which made the implications very clear for the CRTC). So with that experience in mind, I am mindful that Google might be right that no deal at all could mean American ISPs might abuse the wired internet the same way in the US as our telcos did in the past, in Canada. Now I don't know if that's happening. But if it is the case and I was forced to choose and apply net neutrality to only one domain, I would pick the wired over the wireless domain any day.

Maybe you're experience in the US is different and you're wired ISPs are absolute angels who would never do anything like what our telcos did here in Canada, in the absence of any regulation at all. If that's the case, Google is most definitely wrong and you are right.

Well mouse I have some bad news for you. Personal morals and ethics are great but you can't force others to have them even more so large companies. Or start bashing people you don't even know on the forum in regards to their morals or ethics.

Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.

And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.

Well, I do know a lot about your morals, based on various statements you've made here.

And, while I can't force people to act morally, I can certainly point out hypocrisy and unethical behavior when I see it. And, maybe, I can convince them that it really isn't something they can just pretend isn't an issue.

Really? How do you know he isn't actually a close friend? Or maybe a coworker? Or maybe a neighbor? Or maybe your boss?

When you're on the internet, cloaked behind a random screen name, you can be whoever you want. As moral or immoral as you want.

The question I would ask is what made you judge/jury/executioner of morals? Did some Super Moral Diety come and appoint you to be better than all of us?

Correct but at least that is a realistic view of the situation. Not bashing one company for trying to set controls and then saying Apple is controlling content only for our user experience as if Apple gets no benefit out of it other then making us happy...lol.

I think Steve or most any Apple exec would readily admit that the store and control is for Apple's benefit!

I have little problem when a company wants to exert some reasonable control on how its products are used-- to protect their brand, etc. The public has the choice to opt-in or opt-out to the ecosystem

I am less sanguine when a for-profit company works with another for-profit company and the government under the guise of defining whats good for "everyone". The public has no choice to opt-in or opt-out!

If the proposal has benefits to the parties involved, the parties should forthrightly state those benefits!

As a voter, corporate shareholder, and adherent of capitalism, I do not think that altruism is a believable or desirable corporate attribute.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that corporations should try to do good, improve the world and all that-- but their underlying motive is to make a profit.

Given that, Doing "well" by doing "good" is fine-- as long as everyone understands what "well" is!

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

You do know what black and white means right? That you side completely with one side or the other. Either Google is a company completely out to get you or their angels that can do no harm. ... And my complicity eh? So now in your mind I'm an employee on Google's board helping to drive the "evil plot of doom" along. ...

When it comes to ethical behavior, you either choose to be ethical or not. Choosing to look the other way, because you think you can derive some benefits, and maybe the unethical behavior of others won't affect you, isn't being ethical. And complicity doesn't require you to work for Google, it's about looking the other way, and just letting it happen.

Your all companies do bad things from time to time, even if we accept it as true, is only true in the most trivial sense. The black and white aspect of your thinking is to say that all bad things are equally bad, thus, all those who do bad things share equal moral culpability, therefore, there is no moral difference between them, and one is justified to just ignore the moral question altogether. There's nothing ethical about living that sort of life.

The evidence is right there in their own words. But, I see you've dodged the issue once again.

Having nuance through a different experience (the net neutrality fight here in Canada) is not dodging the question. Guess you don't have the ability to interpret nuance. Fair enough. For you, I dodged the question. I am sure others are intelligent enough to understand my position perfectly.

And again, what evidence? Can you demonstrably prove that Google is wrong and that every wired ISP is practising net neutrality in the USA today?

What we went through in Canada was horrible. They were crippling VOIP or degrading its services (sucked for me since I was using Vonage) to compel you to use their VOIP offerings. They were throttling or even outright blocking torrents. All because we didn't have any rules at all. With no regulation at all in the US, that's the future you'll have very shortly. The Google deal is not perfect, but it's far better than having a crippled wired internet where you can't use Skype properly on your desktop. Something better than nothing. That's the point. Google can't any deals without compromising. That's reality. They wanted the wired domain protected and so they gave in on the wireless domain.

Now if you can show that there was sufficient support across the board for net neutrality in the wired and wireless domains, and that Google simply cut a weak deal, I'll buy your argument. But if that was the case, uyou wouldn't have had the deadlock in the first place and subsequently this agreement, right?

Ultimately there's only one perfect solution here: government mandated net neutrality. If you want absolute net neutrality, then you have to legislate it. That's the job of government. And if I were a resident/citizen of the USA, that's what I would be fighting for (across the board net neutrality legislation), regardless of whatever deal, whichever big name corporation was pushing.

Really? How do you know he isn't actually a close friend? Or maybe a coworker? Or maybe a neighbor? Or maybe your boss?

When you're on the internet, cloaked behind a random screen name, you can be whoever you want. As moral or immoral as you want.

The question I would ask is what made you judge/jury/executioner of morals? Did some Super Moral Diety come and appoint you to be better than all of us?

What do any of your hypotheticals have to do with whether he is ethical or unethical? The only effect of discovering any of those in the affirmative would be to lose respect for that person, if I formerly had any. And, no, the anonymity of the internet does not absolve the person you are from moral obligation. While it might make you less uncomfortable about engaging in immoral behavior, it doesn't absolve you of it. No one made me the arbiter of morals. If you wish to defend your behavior as ethical, feel free to do so, and I'll feel free to express any disagreement I have.

BTW, I've learned a lot about you and your sense of morality today, whether you think I have or not.

Ironically, you're the one dodging the issue by not answering his question. Show us the links that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Google was up to no good.

What you're essentially doing is telling the jury to condemn a man for murder by screaming "Just look at him! He looks like a murderer! Can't you see??!!!"

False analogy. And, why do we need links when we have Google's and Verizon's own words about what they intend? It's all right there, and only the apologists are trying to spin it into something good for us.

Having nuance through a different experience (the net neutrality fight here in Canada) is not dodging the question. Guess you don't have the ability to interpret nuance. Fair enough. For you, I dodged the question. I am sure others are intelligent enough to understand my position perfectly.

And again, what evidence? Can you demonstrably prove that Google is wrong and that every wired ISP is practising net neutrality in the USA today?

Oh, I see, if companies are currently violating principles of net neutrality, that would justify abandoning the concept. There is no nuance of interpretation involved here, unless you are just trying to spin Google's 180 degree reversal of position here.

Again, it's your choice, but the ethical choice in this instance does not include supporting Google/Verizon.

When it comes to ethical behavior, you either choose to be ethical or not. Choosing to look the other way, because you think you can derive some benefits, and maybe the unethical behavior of others won't affect you, isn't being ethical. And complicity doesn't require you to work for Google, it's about looking the other way, and just letting it happen.

Your all companies do bad things from time to time, even if we accept it as true, is only true in the most trivial sense. The black and white aspect of your thinking is to say that all bad things are equally bad, thus, all those who do bad things share equal moral culpability, therefore, there is no moral difference between them, and one is justified to just ignore the moral question altogether. There's nothing ethical about living that sort of life.

Then I ask of you what is "ethical"? Is there some standard document that tells the world what ethical is or isn't? No. There's only general guidelines and can differ from person to person, company to company.

We treat killing a person as clearly unethical. However, if the death of the person saves the lives of millions more, then which is the more ethical choice there? As you see, there is no clear line between ethical and unethical. It's what we make it to be given the circumstance.

As for my so-called black and white thinking, I don't think you're in a place to tell me what my though processes are unless you are me. I don't believe all companies have the same level of "evils". I'll take BP and Google for example. BP made the oil spill in the Gulf and dragged their feet in getting it contained. This led to a multi-billion dollar cleanup that is just now happening and who knows how much damage to the ecosystem. Google, on the other hand, tried to move a stagnant net neutrality issue forward. For all we know, they could have been preventing something much worse from happening. And their whole privacy issue with the WiFi data? They came clean that they inadvertantly collected the data and in turn, handed it over to the proper authorities. I see both as "evils" done by the respective companies. But I place BP's "evil" much further above Google's.

As many of us have pointed out, what have you done to not "look the other way"? All we've seen is you ranting and rave on an internet forum about the "evils". Have you written letters, started a petition or spoke with your legistators of the issue? If not, then you're "looking the other way" too. You have no right to judge others unless you have judged yourself with the same standards.

I'm also interested in Jetz's question about where your anger was before Google/Verizon started this chain of events. If you could be passionate then about creating net neutrality laws as you are now about bashing Google, then this all might not have taken place.

Oh, I see, if companies are currently violating principles of net neutrality, that would justify abandoning the concept. There is no nuance of interpretation involved here, unless you are just trying to spin Google's 180 degree reversal of position here.

Again, it's your choice, but the ethical choice in this instance does not include supporting Google/Verizon.

You're right. You should fight against the deal. Go back to deadlock and then get torrents, VOIPs and pretty much everything your ISP doesn't approve of throttled in a few months. I am sure you'll love the carrier 'curated' internet that lands in your home soon.

Think I am exaggerating and building up a strawman? If only you lived in Canada and had to deal with Bell and Rogers a few years ago....

I am not a fan of the idea that Google isn't protecting the wireless domain. But I do recognize that it is possible they were forced into an untenable position that did require choosing between a rock and a hard place. And I recognize that the only way out is to take the choice out of the hands of industry and legislate net neutrality across the board, instead of compelling companies like Google to negotiate with the deck stacked against them (ISPs running wired and wireless and content delivery businesses). Interestingly, Google is only pushing this compromise in the USA. I wonder why.

Personally, I am all for having internet be a public infrastructure like the hydro/electricity or water company. I don't buy the argument that nobody would invest in the infrastructure if if were a public sector operation. But we are where we are and its private entities which have content businesses as well, that control the pipes to the internet.

What really confuses us outsiders is why telcos and Google or anybody else are negotiating in the first place. That's what I want to know. Is your government that weak, that industry writes legislation on its own. Why should Google have to negotiate anything in the first place? Why isn't the FCC laying the smackdown on the telcos and finishing the matter?

By the way, you seem ready to attack Google. Where's your venom for the telcos who actually want to mess with your content? They seem to be a far greater threat to me than Google.

False analogy. And, why do we need links when we have Google's and Verizon's own words about what they intend?It's all right there, and only the apologists are trying to spin it into something good for us.

You do know that with the bolded part, you're proving my analogy true?

All I've read are articles that guess to what they think Google/Verizon have said in those meetings.

All we're asking for is a link to some documents or articles with those "own words". It's a simple request. If it's as evident as you make it out to be, then you should have no trouble finding them.

You'd make an excellent politician some day. Ever consider running for office? Maybe then you'll actually be able to make a difference instead of sitting here in an internet forum attacking random posts.

Black and white world views with little understanding of the issues in play but yet thinks he's absolutely right. However, absolutely unwilling to do anything more than talk about the issues. And only cares about them when they land in the media (search his post history for net neutrality prior to this story). Would make an excellent politician. Solid teabagger potential.

Then I ask of you what is "ethical"? Is there some standard document that tells the world what ethical is or isn't? No. There's only general guidelines and can differ from person to person, company to company.

You really have a warped sense of morality if you think it comes down to some, 'general guidelines' or a 'standard document'? That's an absurd idea of morality.

At its very basis moral behavior encompasses the concept of not causing harm to others, and I would extend that to the more active concept of extending help to others when they are in need and you are able. Choosing a course of action that benefits oneself, but causes harm to others as a consequence is unethical.

Whether one causes harm is not generally that subjective a concept in practice, and Google's selling out of net neutrality for its business purposes clearly crosses that line, as does directly supporting Google in its efforts to subvert net neutrality. If supporting Google in other areas helps them indirectly, or emboldens them in their efforts to, undermine net neutrality, and I think it does, then that also is unethical behavior.

There is no real ethical dilemma here for Google. By siding with Verizon, they are throwing net neutrality under the bus and causing harm to millions. They are not in any way preserving net neutrality by abandoning it, nor are they in any way mitigating the damage to it by making their pact with Verizon. It's a gutting, pure and simple. It's the abandonment of everything Google said they stood for for years. It's a betrayal of everyone who supported them because they said they supported net neutrality. Their ethical course, which might hinder their business aspirations, but would minimize the harm they cause, would be to stand by the principles they espoused.

You really have a warped sense of morality if you think it comes down to some, 'general guidelines' or a 'standard document'? That's an absurd idea of morality.

Clearly you misread my intent. Of course there is no book of general guidelines. What you're doing is trying to force what you believe to be moral/immoral onto the rest of us. And saying "shame on you, you evil heathans" if you don't share my views. That was my point.

Quote:

At its very basis moral behavior encompasses the concept of not causing harm to others, and I would extend that to the more active concept of extending help to others when they are in need and you are able. Choosing a course of action that benefits oneself, but causes harm to others as a consequence is unethical.

Again, I point to the example I stated in my post. If you were stuck with the decision of killing another person in order to save thousands of others because their bodies contains a cure to a bacteria infection, which one's the ethical choice? According to you, killing the person is unethical, so you have to spare him to be ethical. But then the other thousands will die, so makes you unethical. If you kill him, you save the other thousands, but in an act of being ethical to the thousands, you do something that's unethical to the single one. The lines aren't so clear are they?

Quote:

Whether one causes harm is not generally that subjective a concept in practice,

See my example above. It clearly can be subjective.

Quote:

and Google's selling out of net neutrality for its business purposes clearly crosses that line, as does directly supporting Google in its efforts to subvert net neutrality. If supporting Google in other areas helps them indirectly, or emboldens them in their efforts to, undermine net neutrality, and I think it does, then that also is unethical behavior.

What line? The one you decided? Seems like extreme, Jetz, and myself disagree with you. By definition, that makes ethics here subjective.

Quote:

There is no real ethical dilemma here for Google. By siding with Verizon, they are throwing net neutrality under the bus and causing harm to millions. They are not in any way preserving net neutrality by abandoning it, nor are they in any way mitigating the damage to it by making their pact with Verizon. It's a gutting, pure and simple. It's the abandonment of everything Google said they stood for for years. It's a betrayal of everyone who supported them because they said they supported net neutrality. Their ethical course, which might hinder their business aspirations, but would minimize the harm they cause, would be to stand by the principles they espoused.

And you know this to be complete fact based on what hard evidence? All I see are your own opinions.

Good point. I have always looked at it this way anything I post online or view online, all my emails or anything else if anyone wants it that badly they are going to get it. Now that I have anything online all that interesting.

Hey Extreme, can I jump in here? I can relate to your remark regarding not having anything interesting online, as that is the same with me. But what about those people who do their income taxes online ? .... shouldn't we do everything possible to protect their privacy? .... what about banking online ? .... what about an innocent picture of a grandchild taking a bath sent to grandpa and grandma .... what if it was easy for a child molester to get that image and make it part of a worldwide porn site. The thing is, imho, privacy lost is the most valuable thing we have .... we have to protect it at all costs. Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

Blowing out another person's candle does not make our candle burn brighter - author unknown

Devices, not smartphones and not small limites product lineup all using the same components. How many of those 65.3M Samsung phones have 802.11n or Categpry 5 HSUPA or even the same high-end display panel type?

And in that period how many of that 8m phones Apple sold had those features. You seem to ignore the fact that the second quarter results contain zero iPhone 4 sales.

And Staples sold 500 billion paperclips in the same time frame. So what? Why are you comparing Samsung's total sales - including dumb phones that Apple doesn't have an interest in) with Apple's smartphone sales?

Just as Apple sells a lot more iDevices than the iPhone.

oh reeeeeally?

Toyota sells different cars, all have 4 wheels, steering wheels, and are, just cars. Just like android phones are all, phones, they all just look a little different and a few different features. Your own analogy backfired on you.

Apple's iPhone is seventh in units sold with 2.7 percent of the market share, and iOS is fourth with 14.2 percent of the market. So with that why are the U.S. DOJ and European Union targeting Apple for having a monopoly?

Apple's iPhone is seventh in units sold with 2.7 percent of the market share, and iOS is fourth with 14.2 percent of the market. So with that why are the U.S. DOJ and European Union targeting Apple for having a monopoly?

The government needs to put a stop to Apple monopolizing mindshare. It should be illegal for any one company to have it's devices compared to and talked about constantly, especially when they don't have the highest unit sales. Why no talk of a Blackberry Killer or Symbian OS Killer, only iPhone Killers, despite the iPhone having much less than either of these. Apple is clearly using subliminal advertising to trick users. Down with mindshare monopolies I say!

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Interestingly, Google is only pushing this compromise in the USA. I wonder why.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say it's because the USA appears to be one of the easiest countries in the world where it's possible to "buy favorable legislation". ... One look at the financial industries clout over government policy over the last few decades should be enough to arrive at that conclusion. .... and which tech company is right up there with political donations. Here's a clue .... it's not Apple.

P.S. .. I haven't made up my mind yet about the Google/Verizon proposal because I haven't done enough research yet to reach an informed opinion .... but when I do I'll share it.

Blowing out another person's candle does not make our candle burn brighter - author unknown

The government needs to put a stop to Apple monopolizing mindshare. It should be illegal for any one company to have it's devices compared to and talked about constantly, especially when they don't have the highest unit sales. Why no talk of a Blackberry Killer or Symbian OS Killer, only iPhone Killers, despite the iPhone having much less than either of these. Apple is clearly using subliminal advertising to trick users. Down with mindshare monopolies I say!

HeHe ... I can only hope that everybody gets this post, because otherwise .... we're in for a long day.

Blowing out another person's candle does not make our candle burn brighter - author unknown

I was referring to the bluetooth hardware and the bluez library. For some reason, Samsung broke bluez so apps like the wiimote input app no longer works. There are some HTC phones that have a similar problem and point to HTC Sense as the culprit. I've combed over the bluez source for the galaxy phones and can't find anything that would break it (it's the same as the one used in ubuntu 9) so it must be a kernel level break.